Seminary gives association six months to vacate property

The left foot of fellowship, gotta love it.

 

In the article ---- Meredith states that the issue is a "loose---loose" for the Kingdom when all along the Kingdom demands we "come out from among them and be ye seperate"

Spiritually----Dr. Patterson is correct:thumbsup:

Legally, though---a civil court will(in my opinion) side with the association:tear::tonofbricks:

 

I also agree that southwestern is most likely in over their head when it comes to the courts. Hopefully it will not come to the because that too is a violation of scripture. They have gotten themselves into a messy situation. I pray that this is worked our without further damage to the Lord's name.

 

If he can accomplish this than it seems he has removed as much BGCT influence as possible. (I remember the day the Baptist Standard was removed from the campus.)

You know what's interesting, I've talked with people on all sides of the SBC resurgence conflict. The only side who has gotten people fired, buildings razed, organizations removed, and such has been the leaders of the resurgence. The "moderates" (if you absolutely must call them that) never really did this kind of thing.

Anyhoo, I pray for Southwestern. They are facing continued hard times. It is sad to see a partnership that has lasted so long be done away with for these reasons.

 

That's true.

Now the moderate side is not guilt-free, but there's a definite pattern to the actions of the so-called "Conservative Resurgence" leadership.

It is very sad. I live less than five minutes from the campus, and Southwestern has gained a fairly negative reputation around town, especially since Patterson arrived.

Patterson wanted his house expanded to house his library and big game collection, and has been soliciting funds for a new chapel complex, but somehow thinks it's fine to drop health insurance for retired professors. Doesn't practical Christian living require Christians to live up to their responsibilities and take care of the aged, widows and orphans ahead of building buildings and beautifying the campus, or does Patterson and the Board of Trustees only "believe" the parts of scripture that condemn homosexual activity?

 

This is the truth.

It's so sad to read this kind of stuff. Has the SBC completely lost their minds?

 

God have mercy.

 

This whole situation is why the younger generation is leaving the convention or just isnt interested.

None of this advances the Kingdom.

 

This distresses me very much. My father earned a degree and was later a professor in the School of Music. His uncle founded the School of Music at Southwestern. Before my parents moved back to Nashville because Dad's health, he donated his library to the Music Library. Because of declining enrollments, the increasing expenditures for campus improvements, and the bizarre (there is no other good word for them) "crusades" that Patterson takes up, it no wonder that the seminary's reputation is in the toilet.

Next weekend I'm driving down to Fort Worth for the William J. Reynolds Memorial Sacred Harp Singing to be held in the entry hall of the School of Music. My dad started the singing in the mid-1980's. It is just one of the things that are in jeopardy because of Patterson's antics. I hope the seminary can survive until his retirement. Surely his successor can't be worse.

Tim Reynolds

 

I am appalled at the attacks on Dr. Patterson. First, to let you know, he risked his entire career and livelihood to stand on the Innerancy of Scripture. This man has put more of his reputation and living on the line over Biblical Convictions than probably all of us commenting on this list combined. We all should, whether we agree or disagree with him, respect that he was willing to throw away his career in academia to fight for the Innerancy of Scripture. I don't agree with Patterson on a lot of issues, but I dare say he has more doctrinal integrity than 99% of Christian Scholars I know. Personally attacking him, in my opinion, is a violation of Biblical Standards and is wrong. You may disagree with him, but I dare say you would have to stand on top of a ladder to reach the height of his stature.

If you disagree with his decision, that is okay, but the man should be respected and given double honor.

Secondly, I agree with this decision. The Bible is clear on homosexual behavior and I do not think SWBTS, whose doctrinal statement is clearly for one man and one woman, should be forced to house an organization who disagrees with them on this issue.

My two questions:

Why would the Association want to remain on the campus of a Seminary where they have such strong beliefs?

Why would Patterson allow them to remain?

You can disagree with his timing and reasoning... but please do not show how desperate your arguments are by attacking Dr. Patterson.

 

Timsing,

What is it about the Reputation have you heard about SWBTS that makes it "in the toilet?" WHile it is not going the direction I would like it to go, in some segments in academia I am hearing good things about the school. I don't like some of the militancy against Reformed Theology, but I also would recommend the school over many others because of some good things happening. What specifics about their reputation do you have?

The reason I ask is because this is what people said about SBTS when Mohler took over and SEBTS when Patterson first took over. Today, no one doubts the rigor of the SBTS, some saying it is by far the best Academic institution of the SBC Seminaries and has received some great recognition around the world. SEBTS is respected for its scholarship far beyond the years before Patterson, but not by people who denied the innerancy of Scripture... they hated what happened and they bashed the seminary for their new stands. Is SWBTS in transition? Yes! Yet, I do not think it is going in the toilet. From my experience, when I heard such comments in the past it was because the Seminaries actually believed the Bible and taught it as true... some people don't think that is as academic. I think it is more Christian and more academic.

Call Patterson's actions antics... I will call it a fight for the very Word of God... a fight for the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself. I know that Luther was bashed for his actions.

 

The so-called "attacks" on Patterson simply point out what's in the public record.

Are you saying he is above critique?

Plotting the takeover of the SBC with Paul Pressler is a nervy move, but not something I would be proud of. It has also paid off very well for him.

You need to get to know more scholars then. Patterson made much of professors teaching in line with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, yet he allowed Dr. E. Earle Ellis to teach at the seminary "at the pleasure of the seminary president" who believed and published his views on women in ministry (including the position of pastor), annihilationism, speaking in tongues (Ellis privately spoke in tongues in prayer and it was well known at the seminary as well as published), as well as other controversial issues. Patterson made a lot of noise and took action against others who advocated these positions, but he protected his friend. Now I knew Dr. Ellis personally and was on very good terms with him. I asked him point blank why Patterson allowed him to teach and he said cryptically, that his best guess was that he was "more conservative than the president [Patterson]."

So Patterson apparently isn't really all that concerned about the doctrinal "integrity" he talked so much about.

I'm not attacking him as a person. I'm pointing out that he routinely says one thing and then does another.

The Tarrant Baptist Association does not disagree with the seminary regarding homosexuality.

Since they do not disagree regarding homosexuality, that's not an issue. Furthermore, the Tarrant Baptist Association built and owns that building. Only the land belongs to the seminary.

Because they have an agreement. However, Patterson and the trustees don't seem to worry about agreements and promises like providing health insurance for their retirees, so I don't see why he would let a little piece of paper get in the way of his desires.

You don't seem to mind calling all of us on the carpet, so would you be so kind as to point out anything in this thread that is not true or is unwarranted so I can get a sense of what is out of line?

 

I don't see anyone here personally attacking Dr. Patterson.

Rather I see legitimate questions about the nature of his leadership of an important institution. Are you saying he's above accountability? I don't see anyone here calling him names, libeling his character. I see honest questions.

How has the Tarrant Baptist Association condoned and endorsed homos3xual behavior?

I think the homos3xual issue is a flashpoint that too many leaders in the convention are using to push their agendas. I remember watching a convention a couple of years ago (via online) and when an honest question was asked about an action a leader got up and reported it was because of homos3xuality. He then went on to imply that to question the decision was to endorse homos3xuality.

I don't agree with this decision.

The Tarrant Baptist Association has had a welcomed presence on the Southwestern Campus for a long, long time. It has (until the last five years) been very amicable. When I was attending SWBTS I would go and visit people in the Associational office. Wonderful people.

What rules have they broken? The homos3xual issue is a pretext that has little legs. Why, in the middle of a time where we Southern Baptists are losing our valued associational offices, is this one being ripped farther away from the students it could be serving?

This is exactly what I don't get about some peoples' arguments, they take an honest question and rip it out of context and make a threatening accusation. Are you saying Dr. Patterson's leadership is not up for accountability? As an alumnus, do I have the place to ask about where certain monies are being spent? Can we, as Cooperative Program supporting parishioners, ask honest questions about a monstrous chapel project that is far beyond what is actually needed?

I appreciate Dr. Patterson and his ministry. He is excitedly Gospel centered and a fairly well credentialed theologian. He is, without a doubt, a man who has benefited the Kingdom. Please don't say I haven't said these things.

 

Just one question

When the dust settles----which side of the Red Sea do you want to be on???

 

Some people said, on this list, that he would rather build buildings than feed widows and orphans. Others called his actions for the innerancy of Scripture "Shenanigans" and that the trustees and him only believe the parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality. You implied that the motive of Patterson is not because of Biblical convictions but because he just wants to "use" it. Those are personal attacks, they are wrong.

They are allowing an openly homosexual church to remain in the association. A church that was kicked out/left both the SBC and left the liberal Texas State Convention over this very same issue. The doctrinal statement of the SWBTS and the Southern Baptist Convention is contrary to this stand... The association knows the stand of SWBTS and knows they are in violation of SWBTS and the Southern Baptist Convention's stated position on this issue.

Tarrant condones it by allowing it to continue. Liberals call upon the autonomy of the local church, but they take it too far to even say that an association cannot condemn another church nor remove fellowship (which has been a part of association life long before Southern Baptists were around, in America going back to the Philadelphia Baptist and Charleston Baptist Associations).

Are you inferring this is not a Biblical issue in which God clearly condemns in the Bible?

I have worked as a Pastor in the SBC, I have worked with liberals and conservatives. I know of no leader in the SBC who would say they fight for the Biblical understanding of marriage and sexuality to just advance their agenda. I have been in meetings where I think motives on other issues could be questioned, but I believe from my first hand knowledge, this is a conviction, not a mere agenda issue. This is clearly a Biblical issue. Was not Sodom destroyed because of this issue? Did not Paul note the depravity of man that God would give them up to more depravity to include homosexuality? Did not God say not to associate with the sexually immoral? This is a Biblical issue, not a political one.

If you disagree, you have a problem, not with Paige, but with the Bible itself.

why? Do you think homosexuality is a sin? Do you think associations should allow churches to remain who openly allow homosexuality?

I didn't say these people were bad people.. I never doubted they are wonderful people. SOme of the nicest people I know and have worked with are liberals that I would never allow my church to associate with. Roy Honeycut was one of the nicest men you can ever meet. I would have lunch on a regular basis with a liberal, whom I love and that I thought was a nice guy and whose company I enjoyed, but doctrinally I would not associate with their ministries.

Nice people are not always Biblical people. The goal is faithfulness to God's Word.

They have violated the stated doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention. I do believe Patterson should be accountable, and he should be accountable first to the approved Doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention which is the Baptist Faith and Message. But I do not see what he is doing that is wrong. The association, as well should be accountable. If they allow someone to go against the stated doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention and of SWBTS, which they agreed to adhere and honor, then should they not be kept accountable. They violated the SWBTS stated doctrinal position and therefore SWBTS does have the option to remove their association with the association.